Thank you very much, Greg.
Depending on the outcome of the the "Is Java Web Start covered by
WCAG?" question [1]. We may need to use Proposal O [1] to address
scoping, so Oracle's Java Web Start can conform.
Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/thread.html#msg356
[2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_O
On 4/27/17, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote:
> Laura, your original question was if we could live with Proposal N. Of
> course: I would not presume to hold up publication. However, I'll be
> extremely disappointed if this ends up being the final wording, for reasons
> I've stated in the surveys and on the calls. If we need to move along,
> though, so be it. I'll resubmit my concerns in a later stage (although I do
> wish we had more mature tools so I wouldn't have to keep track of them
> myself).
>
> Greg
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text
> SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that
> SC has support in 2 technologies?)
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
> Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org"
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>,
> Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor
> <josh@interaccess.ie>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan
> <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>,
> public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 4/26/2017 9:43 AM
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> For the time being I was thinking one AA SC and dropping the color and
>> font-family bullets. We could add a note similar to the one in
>> Andrew's proposal [1], saying we want to to include overriding text
>> color, background color, and font-family, but haven't yet found a way
>> to do so that is sufficiently testable.
>>
>> Then after more research reassess the situation. At this point not
>> sure if we would end up with 2 SCs or not.
>>
>> Please check Proposal N for the SC text:
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_N
>>
>> Could you live with the text in that proposal?
>>
>> My thought is that it would be good to get some text out to the public
>> and then be able to build on it.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/commits/3f49688d0720969cb31fe300d1a697294b249bba
>>
>> On 4/26/17, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote:
>>> Laura, assuming we're still splitting Adapting Text into two SC, were
>>> you
>>> intending this sentence for the Level A, the Level AAA, or both?
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text
>>> SC's
>>> intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC
>>> has
>>> support in 2 technologies?)
>>> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>> To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, w3c-waI-gl@w3. org
>>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White
>>> <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew
>>> Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>,
>>> Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims
>>> <glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf
>>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>>> Date: 4/25/2017 3:49 AM
>>>> Hi Gregg and everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner:
>>>>
>>>> Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the
>>>> Adapting Text SC's intro sentence?
>>>>
>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>>
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>> Laura
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last
>>>>> one at AA is Option L:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on
>>>>> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that
>>>>> you could live with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura
>>>>>>> Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you
>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>> without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> SC will fail general applicability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but in the
>>>>>>>> exploration
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> specific SC. For the most part - that has not been necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And discussion of specific SC are underway now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you have a blanket “we will never use this” then you might
>>>>>>>> block
>>>>>>>> some SC(s) from being able to get in at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>> It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>> lets see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J
>>>>>>>>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> gives
>>>>>>>>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a
>>>>>>>>> technology with poor accessibility support. Any exceptions should
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does
>>>>>>>>> "Images
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Text", for example). For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> probably not the question. Rather, what is the compromising
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> now until we get to Silver?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which
>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about
>>>>>>>>> future-proofing
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> need to discuss responsibility. And currently, the responsibility
>>>>>>>>> chain
>>>>>>>>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation,
>>>>>>>>> linearization,
>>>>>>>>> personalization, and other needs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web
>>>>>>>>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>> buck stops there obviously in its current form. The problem is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain
>>>>>>>>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no
>>>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not
>>>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> W3C). If we really want to produce guidelines which are both
>>>>>>>>> independent
>>>>>>>>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with
>>>>>>>>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility
>>>>>>>>> Guidelines).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C
>>>>>>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>>>>>>> <greggvan@umd.edu>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor<josh@interaccess.ie>;
>>>>>>>>> Repsher,
>>>>>>>>> Stephen J<stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; To Henry<shawn@w3.org>;
>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>> Allan<jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims<glenda.sims@deque.com>;
>>>>>>>>> w3c-waI-gl@w3. org<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
>>>>>>>>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> SC
>>>>>>>>> has support in 2 technologies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used"
>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>> on all of our SCs?
>>>>>>>>> [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at
>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> meet
>>>>>>>>> WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use
>>>>>>>>> today,
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier,
>>>>>>>>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>> Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in
>>>>>>>>> mind,
>>>>>>>>> and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>> that major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be based on implementation technologies that adequately support
>>>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain
>>>>>>>>> privileged
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> whom
>>>>>>>>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> e-mail
>>>>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy,
>>>>>>>>> distribute,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information;
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is
>>>>>>>>> prohibited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Laura L. Carlson